the meaning of being
July 31st, 2006, search relatedRelated posts :: mean things :: mean things :: Implicit complement unfound, unfounded - Sophistry’s tautologies** :: Buchenwald songs
On 29/07/2006, at 4:02 AM, MARK KAHN wrote:
> I’m defending my PhD in a couple of weeks, so I’m in Heidegger most
> days, but having only rudimentary Deutsche, am unfortunately at the
> mercy of translators. No complaint about the translators however,
> just a confession of my ignorance.
What’s your thesis proposition and who are you working with if you
don’t mind my asking? Good luck with the defence. As for Deutsche
Sprache:
Der Wille zum Willen erzwingt sich als seine Grundformen des
Erscheinens die Berechnung und die Einrichtung von Allem, dies jedoch
nur zur unbedingt fortsetzbaren Sicherung seiner selbst.
Likewise I’m not fluent in the German but a loose translation might
be something like: “The will to will enforces itself as the basic
forms of appearance of the calculation and setting up of everything,
and this only for the unconditional ongoing safeguarding of itself”.
Or, going off on a tangent, as a historical projection the very forms
of our everyday world are constantly brought to presence by our
willful participation in the project of modernity. En masse we are
swept along by the necessities of our everyday modern existence and
the planetary relations this modern way of life is dependent upon.
And where does our willful volition come from, is it something we
individually decide for ourselves in the moment of decision or is its
potential granted by the historical setup of the world we live in?
Are we free or are we historically determined, or is human being
essentially (temporally) both at once?
> Perhaps this has been dealt with in years gone by, but I am driven
> to inquire on the following:
> Heidegger’s lifelong quest is the meaning of being. But in what way
> is this a legitmate question?
How many ways can this question be de/legitimated? How many
philosophers are there to philosophize? For me it’s the most basic
legitimate question in philosophy, how are there things rather than
nothing? Which leads to the question what are things, the self and
world? From a phenomenological perspective the question of being is
the question of existence thought as a lived experiential whole, so
holistically it’s the first question about everything that can be
said to be something. I just don’t expect an answer in the form of
what ‘being’ is but rather a ‘how to’ approach the question of being
which is also the self-reflexive question of human understanding.
How about you? Have you legitimized the Seinsfrage?
Cheers,
Malcolm
**********************************
Dr Malcolm Riddoch
An-archos community networks
Web: http://an-archos.com
